ICR Supporting Statement 

Information Collection Request: 

National Pretreatment Program 

 

OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.16 

December 2015

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009

EPA Work Assignment Number 4-22
December 2015 ii

Contents

A. Justification ................................................................................................................. 1

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or 

administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or 

regulation authorizing the collection....................................................................................1

2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to be used ...............................2

3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use of automated processes or 

information technology to aid with the collection ................................................................9

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication .................................................................................10

5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities......................................................10

6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not conducted or is conducted 

less frequently ...................................................................................................................11

7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary burden” placed on 

respondents ......................................................................................................................11

8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register ..11

9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents .................................................11

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents........................................11

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature....................................12

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.....................................12

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to Respondents .....................................13

14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government...................................13

15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB Form 83-I ..........14

16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information .........................................14

17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval ..............................15

18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, “Agency Certifications for 

Proposed Collections of Information.”...............................................................................15

B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information employing statistical 

methods) ............................................................................................................ 15

Appendix A - Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating 

Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection........................................................ 16

A.1. Respondent Burden ..........................................................................................................16

A.1.1. Burden to States ..................................................................................................17

A.1.2. Burden to POTWs................................................................................................19

A.1.3. Burden to Industrial Users ...................................................................................22

A.2. Respondent Costs.............................................................................................................28

A.2.1. Cost to States.......................................................................................................28

A.2.2. Cost to POTWs ....................................................................................................29

A.2.3. Cost to Industrial Users........................................................................................29

Appendix B – Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates ....................... 31

Appendix C – Detailed Results of Respondent Burden and Cost Analysis for the 

Information Collection Requirements of the National Pretreatment Program ..... 33

Appendix D - Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection and Federal Register 

Notice ................................................................................................................. 34

D.1 Pretreatment Streamlining Rule ..............................................................................................34

D.2 ICR Federal Register Notice ...................................................................................................34
December 2015 1

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and 

explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the

collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing 

the collection

This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with 

managing and implementing the National Pretreatment Program as mandated under sections 

402(a) and (b) and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act). This ICR includes all 

existing tasks under the National Pretreatment Program, as amended by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Streamlining Rule. 

EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) implements the National Pretreatment 

Program on the basis of requirements first promulgated in the CWA in June 1978. The CWA 

requires EPA to develop these regulations to establish responsibilities among federal, state, and 

local government, industry, and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control 

pollutants that pass through or interfere with publicly owned treatment works’ (POTW) 

treatment processes or that may contaminate sewage sludge. The regulations have been revised 

numerous times since they were first published in 1978; currently, they consist of 20 sections and 

several appendices. The most recent revision, the Streamlining Rule (Federal Register [FR] vol. 

70, page 60134), was published on October 14, 2005, and became effective November 14, 2005.

See Appendix D for a copy of the regulations authorizing the information collection.

Unlike other environmental programs that rely on federal or state governments to implement and 

enforce specific requirements, the National Pretreatment Program places most of the 

responsibility on local municipalities. Specifically, the program requires all POTWs with design 

flows of more than 5 million gallons per day (mgd), as well as small POTWs with design flow 

less than 5 mgd that receive discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs), which may pass 

through or interfere with the operation of the POTW, or are otherwise subject to National 

Pretreatment Standards, to establish local pretreatment programs. Approved POTWs enforce all 

national Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, as well as any more stringent local 

requirements determined necessary to protect the POTW and its workers, through local 

programs. Authorized states may opt to implement statewide pretreatment programs in lieu of 

requiring POTWs to do so. In statewide pretreatment programs, industrial users (IUs) submit 

data directly to state control authorities.

Each control authority, in turn, must have its program approved by the entity responsible for 

overseeing implementation and enforcement of the National Pretreatment Program. An approval 

authority is either a state, provided it is authorized by EPA to implement the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and National Pretreatment Program, or an EPA regional 

office. EPA Regional Offices are the approval authorities for states that opt to implement 

statewide pretreatment programs rather than requiring their POTWs to implement programs. 

Information is routinely shared between approval authorities and control authorities to ensure 

that the National Pretreatment Program is being properly implemented.
December 2015 2

The active ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.15) was published in the 

Federal Register on August, 25, 2011 (76 FR 53123). This ICR renewal estimates the program 

burden and costs for January 2016, through January 2019.

2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to 

be used

Section 402(b) of CWA requires EPA to develop national pretreatment standards to control 

industrial discharges into sewage systems. The purpose of these standards is to prevent pollutants 

from passing through the treatment plant or interfering with treatment plant operations, possibly

resulting in damage to the environment or a threat to public health. As detailed below, several 

serious problems can occur when industrial wastes are introduced into sewage systems.

 Pass through of toxic pollutants into receiving waters. Industrial pollutants that pass through 

treatment systems into receiving waters can cause fish kills, destroy aquatic habitat, increase 

the risk of cancer in humans, and render receiving waters unsuitable for drinking or 

recreation.

 Interference with treatment plant operations. Municipal wastewater treatment systems are 

designed to handle typical household waste and biodegradable commercial and industrial 

wastes. Toxic industrial compounds that do not pass directly through the system might 

interfere with plant operations.

 Contamination of sewage sludge. Toxic compounds remaining in sewage sludge might 

render it unsuitable for certain disposal methods, such as land application or incineration.

 Corrosion of pipes and equipment. Industrial discharges with high or low pH values can 

cause corrosion in the sewage collection system or the treatment plant, resulting in the need 

for premature repair or replacement of pipes and equipment.

 Explosion of highly volatile wastes. Industrial wastes can explode under particular conditions 

within the sewage collection system or treatment operations as a result of inadvertent mixing 

of volatile compounds, causing widespread damage to treatment facilities and posing a 

serious risk to plant operators.

 Interaction of wastes to produce toxic gases. Industrial discharges such as acidic wastes can 

interact with other wastes in the collection system, causing the release of toxic gases.

EPA has developed National Pretreatment Program standards for situations common to all 

sewage systems, as well as those serving specific industries. National standards apply regardless 

of whether the source is subject to other federal, state, or local pretreatment standards. The 

regulations establish general and specific discharge prohibitions (40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b)) that 

apply to all IUs. 

In addition to the general and specific prohibitions, EPA has developed specific standards for 

certain industrial categories; they are called categorical pretreatment standards. These standards 

specify maximum and average quantities or concentrations of certain pollutants or pollutant 

properties that IUs in certain industrial categories may discharge to a POTW. The categorical 

standards may also specify other practices that categorical industrial users (CIUs) must employ
December 2015 3

to protect POTWs. EPA develops these categorical standards to restrict the discharge of certain 

toxic pollutants that the Agency has identified as posing the greatest threat to human health or 

the environment. Facilities subject to categorical standards must also comply with the general 

and specific prohibitions. Certain categorical standards allow CIUs to submit periodic 

certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or take the place of analytical 

sampling requirements.

Finally, EPA requires the control authority (CA), which is usually the POTW, to develop and 

enforce limits according to local, site-specific situations. These local limits ensure that IUs meet 

general and specific prohibitions detailed at 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b). They are federally 

enforceable pretreatment standards, as defined in section 307(d) of the CWA. If the local limits 

are more stringent than the categorical standards, the more stringent limit applies and is 

enforceable as a federal standard. 

EPA, together with the various approval authorities and control authorities (described below),

implements these standards through the National Pretreatment Program. These entities need 

information to 

 Authorize state and local programs

 Monitor and enforce compliance with the national standards

 Determine the applicability of categorical standards

 Develop and enforce local limits

The information collection requirements discussed in this ICR are authorized by sections 301, 

307(b), 308, 402(a), and 402(b) of the CWA. These sections provide for state administration of 

the NPDES program, which controls point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the 

United States. According to the CWA, states must also develop programs to ensure POTW 

compliance with the requirements of the national pretreatment regulations. Under the same 

authority, POTWs must identify all IUs that discharge pollutants subject to categorical standards 

under section 307(b) of the Act and certain POTWs must develop a pretreatment program to 

ensure compliance with these standards.

The administration of the National Pretreatment Program involves three levels of authority, as 

described below.

 Oversight Authority (OA). EPA Regional Offices oversee state pretreatment programs. They 

also assume the responsibilities of the approval authority (AA) or control authority (CA) 

where states or POTWs do not have authorized pretreatment programs.

 Approval Authority (AA). A state applying for an approved NPDES program must also

obtain approval authority for its pretreatment program. The AA approves POTW 

pretreatment programs, oversees POTW program implementation, and assumes the 

responsibility of the CA for POTWs that do not have a pretreatment program.

 Control Authority (CA). The CA is responsible for implementing the pretreatment program, 

including establishing control mechanisms for compliance assessment and enforcement of 

the national standards, categorical standards, and local limits. A POTW with a pretreatment 
December 2015 4

program approved by the AA becomes the CA. If the POTW does not obtain such approval, 

the state or the EPA region assumes the responsibility of the CA.

Table 2.1 shows the possible combinations of authority, while Table 2.2 outlines the 

responsibilities of each authority.

Table 2.1 Authority under the pretreatment program

POTW with 

Approved 

Pretreatment 

Program

State with Approved 

Pretreatment 

Program

Control 

Authority 

Approval 

Authority

Oversight 

Authority

Yes Yes POTW State EPA

Yes No POTW EPA EPA

No Yes State State EPA

No No EPA EPA EPA

Table 2.2 Responsibilities of each authority

Oversight Authority

(EPA)

 Evaluates pretreatment programs on a national basis and oversees state pretreatment programs to 

ensure that they meet federal requirements.

 Approves state pretreatment program requests.

 Acts as AA or CA in cases where states or POTWs do not have pretreatment programs.

Approval Authority

(Approved States or EPA Regions)

 Reviews POTW pretreatment programs to determine adequacy.

 Assists POTWs in ensuring compliance with pretreatment requirements.

 Audits/inspects approved POTWs to assess compliance (may also inspect IUs).

 Takes appropriate action against POTWs that fail to implement or enforce pretreatment standards 

at IUs not in compliance (where POTW does not take action).

 Acts as CA in cases where the POTW does not have a pretreatment program.

Control Authority

(Approved POTWs, Approved States, or EPA Regions)

 Has primary responsibility for implementing the pretreatment program.

 Ensures that IUs comply with discharge standards, reporting requirements, and certification 

requirements.

 Inspects or reviews self-monitoring reports from IUs.

 Enforces against noncomplying IUs.

The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for these three types of pretreatment 

standards (general, specific, and local limits) are explained in more detail in Appendix A.

In general, EPA, states, and POTWs use the information collected under the National 

Pretreatment Program for program development and implementation purposes. Tables 2.3

through 2.5 summarize the information collected by type and indicate how and by whom the 
December 2015 5

information is used. Users of the information include oversight authorities, approval authorities, 

control authorities, POTWs, IUs, and the public.

Table 2.3 Uses of data collected for program development

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation 

(40 CFR)

Uses of the Data

State pretreatment 

program approval request

State OA 403.10 To evaluate the adequacy of the state’s 

pretreatment program in terms of legal 

authority, procedural requirements, and 

appropriate staff and funding

POTW pretreatment 

compliance schedule 

progress report

POTW AA 403.8, 

403.9, 

403.12(k)

To determine whether the POTW is on 

schedule in developing its program so 

that the AA can provide assistance or 

take enforcement action, if necessary

POTW pretreatment 

program approval request

POTW AA 403.8(b), 

403.9

To evaluate the adequacy of the 

POTW’s pretreatment program in terms 

of legal authority, justification of local 

limits, compliance monitoring, 

administrative procedures, and 

appropriate staff and funding

Maintain pretreatment 

program information*

AA, 

OA, 

POTW

Stored 

on-site

403.11(f), 

403.14

To provide public access to information 

characterizing the pretreatment program 

(e.g., information about POTW program 

approval submissions)

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement. Though no submission is required, AAs, OAs, and 

POTWs incur burden.

Oversight authorities evaluate state pretreatment programs based on information about the 

programs' legal authority, procedural requirements, and staff and funding appropriateness. In 

addition, oversight authorities use information about an IU to determine whether a particular 

categorical standard or subcategory applies to the IU. The oversight authority burden is incurred 

by the federal government only and is a small component of overall burden.

Approval authorities use information collected under the pretreatment program to identify and 

locate IUs that might be subject to national pretreatment standards. Approval authorities also use 

information about IUs to protect the POTW and its workers by prohibiting ignitable, obstructive, 

or reactive discharges from IUs. These authorities also use the data to determine whether a 

POTW’s pretreatment program is adequate and properly implemented. In addition, approval 

authorities use the information to monitor a POTW’s compliance with pretreatment program 

requirements. Note that much of the data used by approval authorities could also be used by

control authorities.

Control authorities use data from IUs to determine the types and amounts of pollutants that 

industries are discharging to a POTW, to track IU compliance with installation schedules for 

pretreatment equipment, and to ensure IU compliance with applicable certification requirements. 

Control authorities also use IU data to monitor an industry’s compliance with pretreatment 

standards, to enforce these standards, to note changes in the volume or nature of pollutants, and 
December 2015 6

to evaluate the effects of an anticipated bypass. In addition, control authorities use IU inspections

to determine whether the IU needs to take steps to reduce the risks of slug, spill, and batch 

discharges.

Control authorities use information from approval authorities to determine their obligations 

under the national pretreatment regulations, specifically those for operating and maintaining 

equipment and those requiring sampling and reporting of pollutant levels.

IUs use information received from control authorities to understand the pollutant levels that must 

not be exceeded in their discharges and related treatment, sampling, and reporting requirements.

The public also uses information received under the National Pretreatment Program when notices 

of significant noncompliance (SNC) by IUs or control authorities are published in local 

newspapers.

Table 2.4 Uses of data collected for program implementation

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

Baseline monitoring 

report 

IU CA 403.12(b) To identify appropriate pretreatment 

standards; to ensure compliance with the 

standards by each source; to determine 

whether schedules for compliance are 

reasonable; and to establish, verify, or 

expand knowledge of the types and extent 

of industrial contributions to POTWs

IU compliance schedule 

progress report

IU CA 403.12(c) To determine compliance with scheduled 

deadlines for installation of pretreatment 

technology and categorical standards 

IU compliance 

attainment report

IU CA 403.12(d) To determine compliance with final 

applicable pretreatment standards and 

whether IU needs additional operation and 

maintenance (O&M) or pretreatment to 

attain standards

IU resampling 

compliance report

IU CA 403.12(g) To demonstrate return to compliance.

IU request for coverage 

under general control 

mechanism

IU CA 403.8(f)(1)

(A)(2)

To determine whether an IU qualifies for a 

general permit

IU self-monitoring 

compliance report

IU CA 403.12(e), 

403.12(h)

To ensure continued IU compliance with 

the pretreatment standards and to 

determine whether enforcement actions 

are necessary

Pollution prevention plan 

(Voluntary)

IU CA 455.41 To support decisions regarding allowing 

CIUs to reduce or eliminate analytical 

sampling requirements; to ensure that IUs 

covered by the Pesticides Formulating, 

Packaging, and Repackaging effluent 
December 2015 7

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

guidelines have prepared a pollution 

prevention plan as an alternative to zero 

discharge

Periodic certifications IU CA Varies** To ensure IUs practicing reduced 

monitoring comply with certification 

requirements and meet criteria for reduced 

monitoring

POTW monitoring 

records and 

documentation of best 

management practices 

(BMPs)*

POTW Stored 

on site

403.12(o), To allow AA to verify POTW compliance 

with national pretreatment standards and 

requirements

IU monitoring records 

and documentation of 

BMPs*

IU Stored 

on site

403.12(o) To allow CA to verify IU compliance with 

national pretreatment standards and 

requirements

Annual POTW reports CA AA 403.12(i) To adequately oversee POTW 

pretreatment programs and resulting 

national implementation status; also, to 

ensure compliance with national 

pretreatment standards and requirements

Pretreatment 

Compliance Inspection 

(PCI)

AA OA Compliance 

Monitoring 

Strategy

The PCI evaluates the POTW’s 

implementation of its authorized 

pretreatment program. It includes a review 

of the POTW’s records on monitoring, 

inspections, and enforcement activities for 

its industrial users. The PCI may be 

supplemented with industrial user 

inspections.

POTW program 

modifications

CA AA 403.18 To modify pretreatment programs on the 

basis of local conditions and to provide 

AAs with opportunities to accept or deny 

such requests

Notice of potential 

problems, including slug

loading

IU CA 403.12(f) To enable the POTW to plan and carry out 

protective actions immediately after a 

change in volume or character of an IU 

discharge

Notification of significant 

change affecting 

equivalent mass limits or 

concentration limits 

IU CA 403.6(c)(9) To ensure that the CA has a reasonable 

basis for calculating mass or concentration 

limits based on a production-based 

standard

Notification of changed 

discharge

IU CA 403.12(j) To ensure that the CA has the necessary 

information to adequately notify the 

NPDES pretreatment authority of 

substantial changes in discharge

Upset notification IU CA 403.16 To inform the CA of descriptions of known 

upsets at the IU. Reporting of upsets is 

required particularly if IU wishes to 
December 2015 8

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ 

Citation (40 

CFR)

Uses of the Data

establish the affirmative defense of the 

upset for an action brought for noncompliance

Bypass notification IU CA 403.17 To inform the CA of the intentional 

diversion of wastestreams from any 

portion of an IU’s treatment facility

Notification of changed 

monitoring location

IU CA 403.6(e)(4) To inform the CA of any change in location 

of an IU's monitoring point(s) so that the 

CA may carry out its compliance 

monitoring and enforcement 

responsibilities

Determination of nonsignificant categorical 

industrial users 

(NSCIUs) and middle tier 

CIUs (Voluntary)

CA

IU

AA, IU

CA

403.3(v)(2), 

403.8(f)(2)(v), 

403.12(e), (g), 

(i), and (q)

For CA to determine whether IU is an 

NSCIU or middle tier CIU and thus subject 

to less stringent reporting, inspection, and 

sampling requirements

Issuance of discharge 

permits or other control 

mechanisms for SIUs 

CA IU 403.8(f) To give SIUs notice of all pretreatment 

requirements and to improve enforcement

Inspection and sampling 

of IU effluent (including 

slug control plans)

CA AA 403.8(f)(2)(v) To monitor industrial discharges to POTW 

treatment facilities

Public notification of 

significant 

noncompliance

CA Public 403.8(f)(2)(viii) To inform the public of instances of 

significant noncompliance

Prevention and control 

plan for spills and batch 

discharges

IU

CA

CA

AA

403.8(f)(2)(vi) For CAs to notify SIUs of the need for 

planning to minimize the risk of slug, spill, 

and batch discharges. Documentation of 

the POTW’s activities must be made 

available to the AA upon request so the 

AA can determine whether the POTW is 

adequately evaluating whether its SIUs 

need slug discharge control plans.

Evaluation of the need to 

revise local limits

CA AA 403.5(c) To evaluate whether CAs have developed 

appropriate local limits to implement the 

general and specific prohibitions.

POTW enforcement 

response plan

CA AA 403.8(f)(5) To assist in determining whether CAs have 

effective enforcement programs

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement. Though no submission is required, IUs incur burden.

**See section 2 of this ICR.
December 2015 9

Table 2.5 Uses of data collected for program/categorical determinations

Type of Data Collected From To Authority / 

Citation 

(40 CFR)

Uses of the Data

Categorical determination 

request

IU, CA AA/OA 403.6(a) To enable the AA/OA to determine the

applicability of a categorical standard or 

subcategory to an IU

Alternative limits 

modification request

IU CA 403.6(e) To notify the CA of any material or 

significant change in the values used to 

calculate an alternative limit

Fundamentally different 

factors variance request

IU, CA OA 403.13 To provide plant-specific data necessary 

for a CA to determine whether an IU's 

production processes or technologies are 

fundamentally different from the 

representative facilities used to determine 

the limits specified in a categorical 

standard and, if so, to adjust the limits. 

This information provides the empirical 

data used to evaluate the appropriateness 

of national standards.

Net/gross adjustment 

request

IU CA 403.15 To enable CA to determine whether an 

applicable pretreatment standard should 

be revised (i.e., to ensure that an IU is not 

required to remove a greater amount of a 

pollutant than is already present in its 

intake water)

Removal credit approval 

request

POTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to authorize a POTW to 

calculate a revised categorical standard 

reflecting pollutant removals already 

resulting from specific POTW design 

capabilities

Removal credit selfmonitoring reportPOTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to monitor ongoing POTW 

pollutant removals, which form the basis 

for revised categorical standards for the 

POTW's users

3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use 

of automated processes or information technology to aid with the 

collection

In general, IUs and POTWs provide written requests and reports. IUs and POTWs give oral 

notices in emergencies; however, the IUs and POTWs follow these notices with written ones. 

EPA uses the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) to electronically store, track, 

and access pretreatment-related program information.
December 2015 10

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication

EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Part 403. 

In addition, the Agency has examined the following sources to determine whether similar or 

duplicative information is available elsewhere:

 Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)

 Management Information and Data Systems Division Inventory of Automated Systems

 Environmental Information Clearinghouse

 Inventory of ICRs

EPA did not find any similar or duplicative reporting requirements. No other mechanism for 

obtaining information on continued compliance with pretreatment standards is available.

5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities

In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information collections on small 

entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions, all of which are defined as follows in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act:

 A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not 

dominant in its field, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 

Regulations under section 3 of the Small Business Act.

 A small organization is any non-profit enterprise that is independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in its field.

 A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, 

township, village, school district, or special district that has a population fewer than 

50,000. This definition may also include Indian tribes.

The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect only state governments 

and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs). Requirements for pretreatment program 

implementation and program/categorical determinations involve some small businesses. The 

information requested, however, is not available from other sources and is essential for 

implementing the pretreatment program.

Overall, the burden for small industries is likely to be inherently smaller than that for other IUs 

because their facilities are less complex. Reporting burdens are less for SIUs than for CIUs. 

Under the Streamlining Rule, EPA modified some of the sampling requirements for CIUs to 

provide greater flexibility; these changes will benefit some of the smaller CIUs. Under the 

Streamlining Rule, EPA also provided states and POTWs opportunities to reduce reporting

requirements for CIUs that never discharge more than 100 gpd of total process wastewater. 

POTWs and states may also categorize some CIUs as middle tier, meaning they, too, may be 

subject to fewer reporting requirements. A number of small facilities are likely to fall into these 

categories.
December 2015 11

6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not 

conducted or is conducted less frequently

EPA considers the reporting requirements associated with the pretreatment program (both the 

one-time and ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements) the minimum necessary for 

effective administration of the program. EPA also considers the reporting requirements the 

minimum necessary to ensure effective control of hazardous wastes and to implement RCRA 

section 3018(b). Most alternatives to the present set of minimal requirements would entail an 

increase in reporting burden to respondents. In addition, EPA considers the specific 

requirements for SIUs and for reporting the discharge of RCRA hazardous substances preferable 

to repealing the domestic sewage exclusion. The domestic sewage exclusion is a RCRA 

provision that excludes domestic sewage and any mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes 

that pass through a sewer system to a POTW for treatment from being classified as a RCRA 

hazardous waste.

The data collection is mandatory and the consequences of not collecting the information would 

result in a failure of the regulated facilities and/or control authorities to comply with the 

authorizing Pretreatment Program regulations. Failure to comply could result in enforcement 

actions including civil or criminal penalties.

7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary 

burden” placed on respondents

There are no special circumstances where “extraordinary burden” is placed on respondents. The 

collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act 

guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of 

emergency response or enforcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act 

requirements.

8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice 

in the Federal Register

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60142). The notice 

included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection 

requirements on the regulated community. EPA did not receive any comments on this ICR. See 

Appendix D for a copy of the Federal Register notice.

9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents

No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents

The following reporting requirements may contain confidential business information (CBI), 

proprietary information, or information containing compromising trade secrets:
December 2015 12

 Pretreatment Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)

 IU Compliance Schedule Report

 POTW and IU Maintenance or Monitoring Records (excluding effluent data)

 Pretreatment Categorical Determination Request

 Pretreatment Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variance Request

In such cases, the respondent has the right to request that the information be treated as CBI. EPA 

and its agents will handle all data so designated in accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR 

403.14(a): 

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, any information submitted to EPA pursuant to 

these regulations may be claimed as confidential by the submitter. Any such claim 

must be asserted at the time of submission in the manner prescribed on the 

application form or instructions, or, in the case of other submissions, by the words 

“confidential business information” on each page containing such information. If 

no claim is made at the time of submission, EPA may make the information 

available to the public without further notice. If a claim is asserted, the 

information will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 2 

(Public Information).

The pretreatment regulations, however, stipulate at 40 CFR 403.14(b) that industrial effluent data 

“... shall be made available to the public without restriction.”

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive 

nature

Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection. 

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of 

information

Appendix A presents a detailed description of the information collected and methodology for 

estimating respondent burden and cost of collection. The total annual respondent burden 

associated with this ICR is estimated to be 1.74 million hours per year. Table 12.1 presents the 

distribution of annual number of respondents, average annual burden, and average annual total 

labor costs between states, POTWs, and IUs. 

Table 12.1 Summary of Respondent Burden and Labor Costs

Average Annual 

Respondents

Average Annual 

Total Burden 

(hours) 

Average Annual 

Total Labor Costs 

(2014$)

States 36 128,774 $5,609,378

POTWs 1,576 836,040 $34,077,004

IUs 22,139 779,592 $41,754,968

Totals 23,751 1,744,406 $75,391,717

Cost of labor is based on a loaded hourly rate of $43.56 for states, $40.76 for POTWs, and 
December 2015 13

$53.56 for IUs. See section A.2 of Appendix A for more details.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to

Respondents

The only non-labor costs for capital and O&M are those incurred by IUs that receive mass limits 

as an alternative to concentration based standards. The total annual non-labor respondent costs 

associated with this ICR are estimated to be $2,515,470 and are adjusted for inflation to 

November 2014 dollars using the CPI. 

14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal 

government

The federal government (EPA Regions and Headquarters) incurs burden and costs to process, 

analyze, and maintain the information collected. EPA Regions, in their role as OAs, are users of 

the State Program Approval Requests, Categorical Determination Requests, FDF Variance 

Requests, and other types of information.

Most of the respondent activities described in Appendix A of this ICR generate reports, 

information, or data, which must be received, reviewed, and stored by an OA. Table C.8 in 

Appendix C calculates the burden to federal agencies (primarily EPA Regions) as users of these 

data. Where EPA is the AA (i.e., in 25.7 percent of pretreatment programs), the Agency reviews 

reports generated by pretreatment POTWs. Therefore, the associated review burden for the 

activities detailed in Appendix C, Table C.3 for which reports or data are submitted to federal 

agencies (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly.

Appendix C, Table C.8, outlines the hours per response, number of responses per year, and total 

hours per year expended by the federal government (EPA) for reviewing state and POTW 

reports. Appendix C, Table C.6, outlines the hours per response, number of responses per year, 

and total hours per year expended by the federal government (EPA) in instances where the 

federal government regulates SIUs as the control authority. The annual average number of hours 

expended by EPA as a user of the data is 21,582. Based on an average hourly rate of $42.401for 

a federal employee, the estimated annual cost to EPA is $915,086.

In addition, EPA is the OA for states acting as AAs. Data or reports generated by the activities 

listed in Table C.2 of Appendix C will be sent to EPA Regions for review. The burden for these 

review activities is also included in Appendix C, Table C.8. The agency burden for the federal 

government is summarized in Table 14.1.

 

1 The hourly employment cost of federal employees was determined using a methodology established in previous 

ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2015 General Schedule (2015-GS), the average 

annual salary of a government employee at the GS-9, Step 10, level is $55,116. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly 

wage would be $26.50. Assuming overhead costs of 60 percent, or $15.90 per hour, the fully loaded cost of 

employment for a federal employee would be $42.40.
December 2015 14

Table 14.1 Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Responses, Burden, and Costs for Federal 

Agency for the 3-Year Period Covered by this ICR

Average Annual 

Burden (hours) 

Average Annual 

Labor Costs 

(2014$)

Average Annual 

O&M Costs 

(2014$)

Total Average 

Annual Costs 

(2014$)

Agency Totals 21,582 $915,086 $0 $915,086

15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 

of OMB Form 83-I

The current burden approved by OMB for the existing ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA 

ICR No. 0002.15) is 1,806,516 hours. The burden request in this ICR is 62,110 (3.6%) hours less 

than the current approved burden. There were no new rules, agency actions or program changes 

that resulted in changes to the burden estimates. The estimated burden for this ICR is based upon 

the assumptions presented in Appendix B including number of SIUs and approved pretreatment 

programs. These assumptions are based upon previous ICR estimates plus adjustments to the

number of SIUs and pretreatment programs that resulted from extensive consultation with the 

States and EPA Regions. The adjustment in burdens are minor and mostly result from changes in 

the number of SIUs which will include the net effect of reductions due to facilities that closed, 

were downgraded from CIU or SIU status, and the addition of facilities that opened or are newly 

permitted. The reduction also reflects a reduction in the number of POTWs projected to develop 

a pretreatment program during the three-year ICR period from 64 to 20. Another small 

component of this adjustment was the reassignment of burden from the states to the federal 

government for instances where the federal government regulated SIUs as the control authority. 

In the previous ICR, this component had been included in the state burden estimate. Table 15.1 

presents a summary of the adjustments in burden estimates from the previously approved ICR.

Table 15.1 Summary of Adjustments in Burden Estimate

Reason Previous 

Burden

New 

Burden Difference Percent Difference

Annual 

Responses

Revised 

Estimate 98,438 95,462 -2,976 -3.1%

Annual Burden 

Hours

Revised 

Estimate 1,806,516 1,744,406 -62,110 -3.6%

Annual Costs Revised 

Estimate $2,318,913 $2,515,470 $196,557 7.8%

16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information

EPA uses ICIS to store, track, and access pretreatment program related information. ICIS is the 

national computerized management information system that automates entry, updates, and 

facilitates retrieval of NPDES data and tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, 

and other data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES. In general, pretreatment related 

data contained in ICIS includes data concerning pretreatment programs, pretreatment compliance 
December 2015 15

inspections, and other program oversight related activities. Information concerning IUs overseen 

by the state or EPA may also be included in ICIS. Pretreatment program-related data can be 

accessed by the public in one of two ways: 

 via an on-line query using EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications website 

at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html. Accessing data via Envirofacts provides a 

method to combine ICIS data with other EPA databases and mapping tools,

 via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by submitting a request to EPA, the state, or 

the POTW.

17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB 

approval

EPA has not made a request regarding display of the expiration date.

18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 

1320.9, “Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of 

Information.”

The agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19 of OMB Form 83-

I.B.

B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information

employing statistical methods)

Statistical methods are not used with this collection.
December 2015 16

Appendix A - Description of the Information Collected and 

Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of 

Collection

This appendix section provides the methodology for estimating the burden and cost to states, 

POTWs, and IUs for complying with the National Pretreatment Program requirements 

summarized in section 12. This section also discusses the assumptions used to estimate costs and 

burden. Additional detail about assumptions is provided in Appendix B. Detailed burden and 

cost calculations are shown in Appendix C.

A.1. Respondent Burden

Changes related to EPA’s Streamlining Rule were incorporated into previous Pretreatment ICRs

and are carried forward into this ICR. Specifically, the Streamlining Rule enabled CAs to 

designate certain NSCIUs and other CIUs as middle tier CIUs. Those CIUs designated as 

NSCIUs and Middle tier CIUs may have reduced reporting burdens. Based on data from annual 

reports, award applications, public comments, and other EPA sources, 9.32percent of existing 

CIUs discharge more than 0 gpd, but less than 100 gpd. An additional 5.72percent of existing 

CIUs are zero dischargers. Approximately 302percent of existing CIUs are assumed to have 

flows more than 100 gpd, but less than 5,000 gpd and less than 0.01 percent of their POTW’s 

design flow (referred to as middle tier CIUs). EPA developed these estimates for a previous ICR 

and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as there is no indication these assumptions are 

incorrect or require revision

Based on discussions between EPA OWM and EPA regional staff, all zero-discharging CIUs 

may be considered NSCIUs. Based on data collected from eight POTW programs, EPA 

estimates that 712percent of small CIUs currently monitor more frequently than the minimum 

requirement of twice a year. Therefore, this ICR assumes that the monitoring and reporting 

frequency will not change for IUs that already monitor and report more frequently than the 

current minimum requirement (twice a year). In addition, EPA estimates that CAs will not 

reduce the frequency with which they issue permits, monitor, or conduct inspections for these 

systems (i.e., 71 percent of small CIUs). NSCIUs (the remaining 29 percent along with all zerodischarging CIUs) will complete annual certifications in lieu of annual monitoring and reporting. 

To gather data to complete this certification, IUs with flows greater than zero will monitor once 

every 5 years, on average. CAs will discontinue control mechanism issuance and formal 

inspections for this 29 percent of NSCIUs with flows greater than zero (along with all zerodischarging CIUs); instead, CAs will conduct an annual 2-hour evaluation, as required by the 

revised regulations.

EPA estimates that 29 percent of the middle tier CIUs will be authorized to reduce their 

monitoring and reporting requirements from semiannually to annually. This estimate is based on 

the estimate that 712percent are currently subject to monitoring and reporting requirements that 

exceed the minimum requirements. In addition, this ICR assumes that for 29 percent of potential 

 

2 EPA developed these estimates for a previous ICR and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as there is no 

indication these assumptions are incorrect or require revision.
December 2015 17

middle tier CIUs, CAs will reduce inspections to once every 2 years instead of once a year.

The Streamlining Rule (incorporated into previous Pretreatment ICRs) also enabled zerodischarging CIUs that previously reported data semiannually to instead conduct an annual 

certification. CAs, in turn, shifted from issuing control mechanisms and conducting annual 

inspections of these facilities to conducting an annual evaluation. EPA estimates that the burden 

for this evaluation to be 2 hours.

A.1.1. Burden to States

Table A.1 at the end of this section shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, 

and Appendix B summarizes the assumptions EPA made in developing the estimates. The 

following paragraphs briefly describe the bases for the burden estimates.

Program Development

State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

Pursuant to consultation with the National Pretreatment Coordinator and EPA Regional 

Offices, EPA anticipates one state will seek pretreatment program authority during this 3-

year ICR period. 

Program Implementation

Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits

EPA assumes that all approved pretreatment states (36) will issue some permits to SIUs. 

EPA assumes that some of these states might issue general control mechanisms in place 

of individual permits. The number of responses per year is calculated based on 

information submitted by states and EPA Regions that indicate that states directly 

regulate 8.5 percent of all SIUs. (See Appendix B for additional information about this 

assumption.) CAs will no longer be required to issue permits to NSCIUs. Because some 

SIUs can now be regulated with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 

percent of SIUs will no longer require an individual permit. Thus, the number of 

responses for each state was reduced by 2 percent. EPA also estimates that it takes 20 

burden hours for a CA to issue a discharge permit; this estimate is carried forward in this 

ICR.

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs

Inspection: EPA estimates that all 36 pretreatment states will provide oversight for some 

SIUs. This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for 8.5

percent of all SIUs. Middle-Tier SIUs will be inspected less frequently (every other year 

instead of every year). This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample.

Sampling and Analysis: All pretreatment states are assumed to perform in-house analyses 

for the SIUs that they regulate. This ICR estimates an average sample analysis burden of 

15.2 hours. This burden was estimated based on regional feedback during the 

development of the ICR for the Streamlining Rule, and it is carried forward from 

previous ICRs. Pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging (PFPR) industry

facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are no 
December 2015 18

monitoring requirements.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

In this ICR, EPA estimates that only the five states that directly implement the 

pretreatment program at the local level (40 CFR 403.10(e) states) will be required to 

publish notices of SNC for their POTWs. EPA estimates that, on average, approximately 

17 POTWs per state (a total of 85 POTWs in the five 403.10(e) states) receive discharges 

from SIUs. One-third of the POTWs in these states (approximately 28 POTWs, or 5.6 per 

state) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year. EPA estimates that 3 burden 

hours are required to complete this activity. 

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

This ICR assumes that only the five 40 CFR 403.10(e) states will be required to develop 

local limits for their POTWs. Each POTW for which the state has assumed CA 

responsibility (85 total) will require local limits development once every 5 years. The 

Agency estimates a burden of 50 hours for this activity.

Program/Categorical Determination

There is no burden for states associated with program/categorical determinations.

States as Users of the Data

Under the National Pretreatment Program, AAs (or the state acting as a CA) must 

receive, review, and store various requests and reports filed by IUs and POTWs. Table 

C.6 in Appendix C calculates the burden to state agencies as users of these data.

When states are the AA (i.e., for 74.3 percent of pretreatment programs), the states 

review reports generated by pretreatment POTWs. Therefore, the associated review 

burden for IU and POTW activities described below and in Appendix C (Table C.3) for 

which reports or data are submitted to states (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly. 

The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding 

activities.

In addition to AA activities, states are the CAs for approximately 8.5 percent of SIUs. As 

CAs, the states are responsible for receipt and review of 8.5 percent of all reports, 

certifications, and data submitted by SIUs. Table C.6 in Appendix C, therefore, includes 

burden for these activities. Table C.1 shows the total state review burden associated with 

the aforementioned activities.

Recordkeeping

Maintain Pretreatment Program Information 

This ICR assumes that each pretreatment state (as the AA) spends 50 hours per year 

maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs. In addition, states act as CAs 

for 8.5 percent of SIUs. An additional burden of 5 hours per SIU per year (i.e., 5 * 2,487)

is included for states acting as CAs. (See Appendix C, Table C.5, for the calculations.) 

The Streamlining Rule amended the pretreatment regulations to require that states 

maintain records for IUs regulated under general control mechanisms, for IU’s initial 
December 2015 19

samples to demonstrate pollutants not present nor expected to be present, and for POTWs 

that request a significant modification. Because states already maintain records on IUs 

under individual permits, IU sampling records, and records on POTW significant 

modification requests, EPA does not expect the Streamlining Rule changes to result in 

changes in the recordkeeping burden.

A.1.2. Burden to POTWs

Table A.2 (at the end of this section) shows the annual burden hours on an activity-specific basis, 

and Appendix C details these burden calculations. The following paragraphs briefly describe the 

bases for the burden estimates.

Program Development

POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request

EPA Regions have indicated that they expect 20 new programs over the next 3 years. 

EPA estimates that preparing a program approval request will require 250 burden hours. 

The regulations also require all approved POTWs to develop and implement enforcement 

response plans describing procedures for investigating and responding to IU 

noncompliance. EPA assumes that POTWs will have completed this requirement as part 

of their approval request and therefore has not included any additional burden for this 

activity. This burden was included in the 250 hours for a new program.

The Streamlining Rule did not make any changes to the pretreatment regulations that 

affect program development burden.

POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report

EPA expects 463 POTWs per year to be subject to pretreatment-related compliance 

schedules. The Agency estimates that each schedule will require the submission of three 

reports per year. EPA estimates that each report will require 5 burden hours to complete.

Program Implementation

Annual POTW Report

For this program activity, EPA assumes one report per program per year. EPA further 

estimates that report preparation will take each POTW 40 burden hours to develop. 

POTW Program Modifications

EPA estimates that 20 percent of approved programs will request program modifications 

of some type each year. EPA estimates that preparing program approval requests will 

take each POTW 40 burden hours. 

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs

Because SIU control mechanisms typically have 5-year terms, EPA estimates that each 

year POTWs (as CAs) will issue control mechanisms to 20 percent of the SIUs that are 

regulated by POTWs (88.8 percent of all SIUs). Under Streamlining, POTWs will not be 

 

3 EPA developed this estimate for a previous ICR and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as there is no 

indication these assumptions are incorrect or require revision.
December 2015 20

required to issue permits to NSCIUs. In addition, because POTWs may regulate some 

SIUs with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no 

longer require an individual control mechanism. Thus, the number of responses for each 

POTW will fall by 2 percent. EPA estimates that POTWs will require 20 hours to issue a 

control mechanism. EPA’s estimate of the number of SIUs to be covered by general 

control mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR. EPA’s 

estimate of the number of hours POTWs will require to issue individual control 

mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Program ICR.

Inspection and Sampling of CIU and SIU Effluent

Inspection: This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for all 

SIUs regulated by POTWs. Middle tier CIUs will be inspected less frequently (every 

other year instead of every year). This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent 

sample. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

Sampling and Analysis: EPA assumes that in-house sampling and analysis will require 

15.2 hours. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded 

because there are no monitoring requirements.

Mass Limits

POTWs establishing equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits to 

meet concentration-based categorical pretreatment standards must determine whether the 

application of a mass limit is appropriate. POTWs will perform these demonstrations. 

Currently, 14 Pretreatment Standards categories are expressed as concentration limits 

alone and are therefore eligible for equivalent mass limits under 40 CFR 403.6(c )(5). 

The following categories are included in this list:

 Inorganic Chemicals (§ 415)

 Fertilizer manufacturing (§ 418)

 Petroleum refining (§ 419)

 Steam Electric Power Generating (§ 423)

 Leather Tanning (§ 425)

 Glass Manufacturing (§ 426)

 Rubber Manufacturing (§ 428)

 Metal Finishing (§ 433)

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (§ 439)

 Transportation Equipment Cleaning (§ 442)

 Paving and Roofing Materials (§ 443)

 Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors Subcategory of the Waste Combustors 

Point Source Category (§ 444)

 Carbon Black Manufacturing (§ 458)

 Electrical and Electronic Components (§ 469)

EPA estimates that there are approximately 12,000 facilities in these categories and that 1 

percent of them will request that the POTW assess flow variability, which will require 8 

burden hours to complete. These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in 

the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the 
December 2015 21

Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning 

of section 1.

Equivalent Concentration Limits

CAs establishing concentration-based pretreatment standards instead of mass-based limits 

must document that dilution is not being used as a substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 

403.6(d) and 414.111(a) and Part 419). In addition, the CA is required to adjust permit 

limits using the combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e) when the 

wastestream used for demonstrating compliance with the permit limits is mixed with nonprocess wastewater or wastewater from other processes. The POTW will perform these 

demonstrations. Currently, three Pretreatment Standards categories are eligible to use this 

provision––Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF); Petroleum 

Refining; and Pesticide Chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA estimates that there are 

420 facilities in these categories. EPA further estimates that 4 percent of these facilities 

will request that the POTW assess flow variability; each assessment will require a POTW 

8 burden hours to complete. These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in 

the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the 

Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning 

of this section.

Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan

The final regulatory changes eliminate the requirement that POTWs evaluate the need for 

a slug control plan for each SIU every 2 years. POTWs may now review the need for slug 

control plans as part of their ongoing oversight of IUs. Therefore, EPA estimates no 

burden for this requirement.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance 

EPA expects POTWs to require 3 hours for public notification activities. EPA assumes 

that one-third of POTWs with pretreatment programs will have SIUs in SNC in a given 

year.

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

EPA assumes in this ICR that all pretreatment programs will reevaluate the need to 

develop local limits once every 5 years. EPA estimates that POTWs will require 50 hours 

to complete this activity.

SIU Notification of Applicable Standards and Regulations

At the time of promulgation of this ICR, EPA has not promulgated any new categorical 

standards. EPA is in the process of developing new categorical standards that may be in 

effect during the 3-year life of this ICR. At this time, it is not possible to assess the 

expected impacts of the new standards. Therefore, EPA will develop revised burden 

estimates once these new standards are finalized.

Program/Categorical Determination

Removal Credit Approval Requests

Based on input from EPA Regional Offices, the Agency estimates three respondents per 

year. EPA further estimates that a POTW will require 125 hours to prepare and submit 
December 2015 22

each request.

Removal Credit Self-Monitoring Reports 

EPA estimates 25 respondents per year based on the number of POTWs with approved 

removal credit variances as reported by EPA Regional Offices. EPA assumes that a 

POTW will require 40 hours per report.

POTWs as Users of the Data

Most of the IU respondents described below and in Table A.3 generate reports, 

information, or data that CAs must receive, review, and store. Table C.7 in Appendix C

calculates the burden to POTWs as users of these data. As CAs, POTWs are responsible 

for receiving and reviewing 88.8 percent of all reports, certifications, and data submitted 

by SIUs. EPA has, therefore, apportioned the review burden for reports or data submitted 

by SIUs to POTWs (as CAs). The numbers of respondents and responses are linked 

directly to the corresponding activities. Table A.2 shows the total POTW review burden 

associated with each activity.

Recordkeeping

Maintenance of Monitoring Records

EPA expects each pretreatment POTW to spend 100 hours per year maintaining SIU 

monitoring records. Changes in the pretreatment regulations due to the Streamlining Rule 

means that POTWs will have to maintain records for IUs regulated under general control 

mechanisms, as well as IUs’ initial samples to demonstrate pollutants neither present nor 

expected to be present. Because POTWs already maintain records on IUs under 

individual permits and IU sampling records, EPA has not estimated any additional 

recordkeeping burden for POTWs as a result of the Streamlining Rule.

A.1.3. Burden to Industrial Users

Table A.3 (at the end of this section) shows the estimated annual burden hours for each type of 

information collected, and Appendix C details these burden calculations. The bases for the 

burden estimates are detailed below.

Program Development

EPA assumes no IU reporting and recordkeeping burden program development.

Program Implementation

The program implementation burden estimates for IUs were calculated per activity, as 

detailed below.

Baseline Monitoring Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs. 

EPA does anticipate the promulgation of a new effluent guidelines for indirect 

dischargers in the Dental Category and in the Unconventional Oil & Gas Drilling 

Categories. However, the reporting burden for these categories will be included in 

separate ICRs specific to those rulemaking efforts. EPA does not anticipate the 

promulgation of other new effluent guidelines for indirect dischargers which would result 

in additional associated BMR requirements.
December 2015 23

EPA assumes 14.3 hours for new source CIUs conducting baseline monitoring analysis 

and 28 burden hours for preparing a Baseline Monitoring Report.

IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs. 

In the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, done as part of the Pretreatment 

Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and explained in section 1, EPA estimated that 

25 percent of new sources or facilities subject to new effluent guidelines would need to 

complete compliance schedules. The Agency further assumed an IU would require 4 

hours to prepare each compliance schedule progress report. EPA is carrying forward 

these assumptions for this ICR.

IU Compliance Attainment Report

CIUs must complete a compliance attainment report within 90 days following the date for 

final compliance with a categorical pretreatment standard. New source CIUs must 

provide such a report within 90 days of commencing discharge of the categorically 

regulated wastestream to the POTW. EPA has annualized the burden for new sources 

over the 3-year ICR period. EPA estimates that CIUs will require 20 hours to prepare the 

compliance attainment reports and 14.3 hours to conduct the associated analyses.

IU Resampling Compliance Report

All IUs are required to notify the CA immediately of all discharges that could potentially 

cause problems for the POTW. IUs are further required to notify the CA and resample 

following a violation. EPA assumes that 10 percent of all IUs will need to resample every 

year. The 1,500 IUs with PFPR P2 certification are not included in the estimate because 

the resampling requirements do not apply to these facilities. EPA assumes that an IU will 

require 4 hours for sampling, 12 hours for analysis, and 1 hour for reporting each year. 

IU Self-Monitoring Compliance Report

Under the Streamlining Rule, NSCIUs are not required to conduct periodic selfmonitoring; instead, they are required to submit annual certifications. (This ICR assumes 

that sampling and analysis is required once every 5 years to complete this certification.) 

In addition, certain middle tier CIUs will monitor and report once a year instead of twice 

a year. These assumptions are carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR.

The Streamlining Rule ICR assumed that a CIU will require 11.6 hours and a noncategorical SIU will require 9.5 hours to complete the report twice per year. EPA has 

excluded PFPR facilities opting for the P2 option from the estimate because these 

facilities have no monitoring requirements.

Pollution Prevention Plans

This ICR assumes that all PFPR facilities (1,500 facilities) will opt for the P2 alternative 

and that all 1,500 facilities have already prepared and submitted an initial certification for 

the P2 alternative. Consistent with the assumptions in the preamble for the PFPR rule (61 

FR 57541), this ICR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are implementing a P2 

alternative plan will submit modifications to P2 plans. The burden for the periodic 
December 2015 24

certification requirements is discussed below under “Periodic Certifications.”

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached 

Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements. EPA estimates 

that the burden to respondents associated with collecting, reporting and maintaining 

records of monitoring data is 826 hours.

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning 

Point Source Category.

EPA estimates that 84 facilities would be subject to these requirements.

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory 

and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point 

Source Category 

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements. 

Request for Coverage Under a General Control Mechanism

This ICR assumes that 2 percent of all SIUs will be covered under a general control 

mechanism. EPA estimates that an IU will require 0.5 hour to complete each request.

Periodic Certifications

Below is a summary of assumptions about the universe of indirect dischargers with 

certification potential (the number of facilities covered by the relevant part or subpart(s) 

of 40 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter N). EPA assumes in this ICR that periodic 

certifications require CIUs 1 hour to complete, which is consistent with the Information 

Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information 

(OMB No. 2040-0110, EPA ICR No. 1427.07). Assumptions regarding the percentage of 

facilities that will undertake certifications activities are summarized below. Except where 

noted, these assumptions are also consistent with the Information Collection Request for 

the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information. Assumptions regarding 

the number of responses per year are also explained below. EPA developed these 

estimates for a previous ICR and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as there is no 

readily available source or indication that these assumptions are incorrect or require 

revision.

 Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (Part 467). The estimated number of 

indirect dischargers in the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (72 facilities) is 

from the Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

for the Aluminum Forming: Point Source Category (EPA 440184073, June 1984). 

EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 72 aluminum forming facilities 

will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from cyanide 

monitoring.

 Canmaking (Part 465, Subpart D). Canmaking facilities covered by Part 465, Subpart 

D, are required to submit a one-time notification if the alloy used in making cans 
December 2015 25

contains less than 1 percent manganese. For indirect dischargers, EPA expects few (if 

any) such notifications in the future. As a conservative estimate, this ICR assumes 

one such notification during the next 3 years.

 Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (Part 437). The preamble to the 

final Central Waste Treatment Rule indicates that 37 facilities “accept wastes from 

multiple subcategories and could be subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory” 

(65 FR 81267). Based on data in the development document for the final rule, 

approximately 91.5 percent of CWT facilities are indirect dischargers (pp. 4–6). In 

this ICR, EPA applies the overall percentage of indirect dischargers to the total 

number of dischargers that accept wastes from multiple subcategories to arrive at 34 

indirect discharger that accept waste from multiple subcategories (37 * 91.5% = 34). 

EPA also assumes that 34 respondents complete initial certification statements for 

coverage under Part 437, Subpart D. Each of these 34 facilities must submit an annual 

certification. (This burden was discussed in the 2003 Pretreatment Program ICR, but 

it is repeated here for completeness.)

 Coil Coating Point Source Category (Part 465). The estimated number of indirect 

dischargers in the Coil Coating Point Source Categories (41 facilities) is from the 

Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (EPA821-R-04-014, August 2004) (“the TSD”).4 EPA estimates that approximately 75 

percent of these 41 coil coating facilities will choose to submit an annual certification 

requesting an exemption from cyanide monitoring. This information collection item 

does not apply to canmaking facilities (Part 465, Subpart D) because they are not 

required to monitor for cyanide. 

 Electrical and Electronic Components (Part 469). The number of indirect dischargers 

in the Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source Category (91 facilities) is 

also from the August 2004 TSD, which in turn uses Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

data. EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of these 91 electrical and 

electronic components facilities will choose to submit a total toxic organic (TTO) 

certification in lieu of TTO monitoring. Certifications must be submitted twice a year.

 Electroplating Point Source Category (Part 413) and Metal Finishing Point Source 

Category. The estimated number of indirect dischargers in the Electroplating and 

Metal Finishing Point Source Categories (7,644 total) is from data compiled by 

EPA’s Office of Science and Technology (OST) during the development of the Metal 

Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule. The categories are combined because the 

facilities’ operations are similar. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of 

these 7,644 electroplating and metal finishing facilities will choose to submit a TTO 

 

4 The TSD estimates the number of indirect dischargers based on data from the TRI. There are limitations associated 

with these TRI data. Because neither small establishments (fewer than 10 employees) nor facilities that do not meet 

the reporting thresholds are required to report, facilities reporting to TRI might be a very small subset of an industry. 

Also, because facilities are identified by SIC code, not by point source category, it might be difficult or impossible 

to identify the point source category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases for some SIC codes. For 

example, coil coating is an operation that is part of canmaking (3411, metal cans). Some of these facilities have coil 

coating operations, but they cannot be identified from the data in TRI.
December 2015 26

certification semiannually in lieu of TTO monitoring. This assumption is consistent 

with the assumptions associated with the Metal Finishing category.

 Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455). The estimated number of indirect dischargers 

covered by PFPR regulations (1,500 facilities) is from the preamble to the PFPR rule 

(61 FR 57541). Consistent with that preamble, EPA assumes in this ICR that all 1,500 

indirect dischargers in the PFPR category will opt for the P2 alternative and that all 

1,500 facilities will submit two certifications per year. These assumptions are 

consistent with the 1996, 2000, and 2005 pretreatment program ICRs and with the 

preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). For consistency with the Information 

Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification 

Information, EPA assumes that certifications will require IUs 1 hour each.

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (Part 439). The estimated 

number of facilities (286) subject to guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 

Point Source Category is based on data gathered by OST during the development of 

the 1998 final rule. EPA estimates, on the basis of data in effluent guideline 

development documents, that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical 

facilities are in a subcategory that potentially uses cyanide. Of these, EPA estimates 

that 75 percent will choose to submit a certification once every permit cycle (once 

every 5 years).

 Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (Part 466). The estimated number of 

indirect dischargers in the Porcelain Enameling Category (146) is from data collected 

by OST during development of the TSD but not included in the final TSD. The 

estimate includes TRI data from facilities with SIC codes 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 

3633, 3632, and 3639, each of which reported transfers of TRI chemicals to POTWs 

in 2000. Although this number represents EPA’s best estimate, the Agency is 

uncertain about the fit between these SIC codes and indirect dischargers covered in 

the Porcelain Enameling Category because operations in these SIC codes could be 

covered by the Metal Finishing Category. EPA estimates that 50 percent of these 146 

porcelain enameling facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting 

an exemption from chromium monitoring 

 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category (Part 430). To estimate the universe 

of potentially affected facilities, EPA has used estimates in this ICR from the 

Supplemental Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category: Subpart B (Bleached 

Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) and from EPA’s 

Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’ Paper and Board 

Mills Pretreatment Standards (September 21, 1984). EPA estimates that 119 of the 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category not including Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade 

Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) will choose to submit an annual 

certification requesting an exemption Based on EPA ICR No. 2015.02, OMB Control 

Number 2040-0242, EPA estimated that six Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft 

and Soda) facilities would certify.
December 2015 27

 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Part 423). The estimated 

number of facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category is 

from the Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category 

(November 1982). EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 117 

facilities will choose to provide an annual demonstration and provide a certification 

requesting an exemption from monitoring requirements for priority pollutants other 

than chromium and zinc.

IU Slug Load Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 100 SIUs per year will be required to provide a slug load 

notification. EPA estimates the average burden per CIU response to be 2 hours. The 

Agency further estimates that an additional 450 non-categorical SIUs per year will be 

required to provide a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per SIU 

response to be 0.25 hour. 

Notification of Changed Discharge

EPA assumes that 1,000 IUs per year will provide notification of a changed discharge. 

EPA estimates that this notification will require 4 burden hours. 

Bypass Notification

In this ICR, EPA carries forward from the previous ICR the assumption that 1,427 SIUs 

per year will report bypasses and that CAs will require 75 percent of these SIUs (1,070 

SIUs) to conduct follow-up activities. EPA assumes IUs will require 5 hours for bypass 

notification and 2 hours for follow-up activities. 

Notification of Changed Monitoring Location

For this ICR, EPA estimates that 50 SIUs will provide notification of a changed 

monitoring location per year. EPA estimates the SIUs will require 1 hour to provide 

notification. 

Slug Control Plan

EPA estimates that 10 percent of all new CIUs will need to develop a slug control plan. 

EPA based the number of new CIUs on an assumed growth rate of 2 percent for existing 

CIUs and to account for any facilities that will be covered under new categorical 

standards. While new categorical standards are anticipated during this ICR cycle, the 

expected impacts of the new standards cannot be specifically assessed at this time. EPA 

also estimates that 5 percent of all new non-categorical SIUs will need to develop a slug 

control plan. The Agency estimates that this activity will require 2 hours per SIU

Program/Categorical Determination

Categorical Determination Request

The deadline for a categorical determination request has passed for all existing effluent 

guidelines. While new categorical standards are anticipated during this ICR cycle, the 

expected impacts of the new standards cannot be specifically assessed at this time

Therefore, no estimate for formal categorical determination requests are included for this

3-year ICR period. A New Source must request this certification prior to commencing 
December 2015 28

discharge.

Alternative Limits Modification Request

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 10 percent of all new CIUs will request alternative limits 

(i.e., use the combined wastestream formula). EPA estimates that an IU will require 2 

hours to complete a request. 

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

FDF variance requests must be submitted within 180 days following publication of a new 

effluent guideline. EPA knows of no pending FDF variance requests associated with 

recently promulgated guidelines. While new categorical standards are anticipated during 

this ICR cycle, the expected impacts of the new standards cannot be specifically assessed 

at this time, no estimate for FDF variance requests are included. In addition, no new 

dischargers under existing guidelines are anticipated because facilities are required to 

submit requests no later than 180 days after promulgation of the categorical pretreatment 

standard.

Net/Gross Adjustment Request

Based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators, EPA 

estimates that two net/gross adjustment requests will be submitted each year. The Agency 

further estimates that IUs will require 50 hours per request. 

Recordkeeping

Maintain Monitoring Records

All SIUs must maintain monitoring records. EPA estimates that SIUs will require 2 hours 

per year to maintain pretreatment records. Also, IUs with general control mechanisms 

have to maintain associated records. CIUs that request a variance for pollutants neither 

present nor expected to be present also have to maintain sampling and reporting records. 

Because IUs already maintain individual permit and sampling records, EPA estimates no 

additional SIU reporting and recordkeeping burden.

A.2. Respondent Costs

A.2.1. Cost to States

Table A.1 shows that the annual costs to states are approximately $5.6 million. The labor costs, 

which account for all state costs, are based on an hourly rate of $43.56 from the U.S. Department 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 3: 

Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total 

compensation: State and local government workers, by major occupational and industry group, 

September 2014.
December 2015 29

Table A.1. Average Annual State Burden and Costs

Activity Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost ($K) Responses

Capital and 

O&M Cost

Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 100 $0 $4.4 $4.4 0.3

Program implementation 49,559 $0 $2,159 $2,159 2,346

Program/categorical 

determination 0 $0 $0 $0 0

States as users of data 67,875 $0 $2,957 $2,957 NA

Recordkeeping 11,240 $0 $490 $490 NA

Total 128,774 $0 $5,609 $5,609 2,347

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.

A.2.2. Cost to POTWs

Table A.2 shows that the annual costs to POTWs are approximately $34.1 million. The average 

hourly rate for municipal employees, which account for all POTW costs, as determined by the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $40.76 (including 50% overhead). 

Updated rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a 

table entitled May 2013 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates and adjusted to September 2014 dollars using the ECI.

Table A.2 Average Annual POTW Burden and Costs

Activity Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost ($K) Responses

Capital and 

O&M Cost

Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 2,357 $0 $96 $96 145

Program implementation 598,825 $0 $24,408 $24,408 26,611

Program/categorical 

determination 1,375 $0 $56 $56 28

POTWs as users of data 75,883 $0 $3,093 $3,093 NA

Recordkeeping 157,600 $0 $6,424 $6,424 NA

Total 836,040 $0 $34,077 $34,077 26,783

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.

A.2.3. Cost to Industrial Users

Table A.3 shows the total costs for IUs over the 3-year ICR period. Annual costs are 

approximately $44 million, comprised of labor and capital and O&M cost. Table C.4 in 

Appendix C presents the detailed calculations.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, 

including overhead. For all IU activities, EPA used the hourly rate of $53.56 based on the rate 

for U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total Compensation for Management, 

professional, and related category from Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 5-

Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total 
December 2015 30

compensation: Private industry, by major occupational group and bargaining status, September

2014.

Capital and O&M costs are incurred by IUs that receive mass limits as an alternative to 

concentration based standards.

Table A.3. Average Annual Industrial User Burden and Costs

Activity Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Annual Cost ($k) Responses

Capital and 

O&M Cost

Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 0 $0 $0 $0 0

Program implementation 735,175 $2,515 $39,376 $41,891 66,310

Program/categorical 

determination 139 $0 $7 $7 22

IUs as users of data 0 $0 $0 $0 NA

Recordkeeping 44,278 $0 $2,372 $2,372 NA

Total 779,592 $2,515 $41,755 $44,270 66,332

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.
December 2015 31

Appendix B – Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost 

Estimates

The table below summarizes the assumptions and input values used to calculate burden. These 

assumptions are based upon previous ICR estimates plus adjustments to the number of SIUs and 

pretreatment programs that resulted from extensive consultation with the States and EPA 

Regions.

Pretreatment Program Data Numbers Basis

Total Number of SIUs 22,139 A

Number of CIUs 9,541 A

Number of noncategorical-SIUs 12,598 A

Number of Zero-Discharge NSCIUs 548 B

Number of CIUs that Discharge > 0 and < 100 gpd 883 B

Number of Non-Zero-Discharge NSCIUs 256 B

Number of NSCIUs 804 B

Number of Middle Tier CIUs 2,862 B

Number of Middle Tier CIUs that reduce monitoring 830 B

Number of State Run POTW Pretreatment Programs in 40 CFR 

§403.10(e) States 

85

A

Total Number of Approved Programs 1,576 A

Number of 40 CFR §403.10(e) States 5 A

Number of States with approved Pretreatment Programs 36 A

Number of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 19,652 A

Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 88.8% A

Number of SIUs with State/EPA as Control Authority 2,487 A

Percentage of SIUs with State as Control Authority 8.5% A

Percentage of SIUs with EPA as Control Authority 2.7% A

Percentage of SIUs Resampling (for violations) 10% A

Hourly Rate for federal employees (50% Overhead (OH)) 42.40 C

Hourly Rate for State employees (50% OH) 43.56 C

Hourly Rate for POTW employees (50% OH) 40.76 C

Hourly Rate for Private Industry employees (100% OH) 53.56 C

Number of New Source CIUs 195 B

Number of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 405 A

Percentage of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 25.7% A

Number of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 1,171 A

Percentage of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 74.3% A

Number of POTWs projected to develop a pretreatment program 

during the three-year ICR period

20

D

Removal Credit Approval Requests 3 E

Percentage of CIUs that are < 100 (including zero) 15.0% E

Of which, percent that are zero dischargers 38.3% E
December 2015 32

Percentage of CIUs in the middle tier 30.0% E

Percentage of middle tier that will reduce monitoring 29.0% E

Basis Codes:

A: Based on consultation with States and EPA Regions

B: Based on A (consultation) combined with assumed factors.

C: Described in supporting statement

D: Revised EPA estimate

E: Assumed factors/values from previous ICR
December 2015 33

Appendix C – Detailed Results of Respondent Burden and 

Cost Analysis for the Information Collection Requirements of 

the National Pretreatment Program

(See Tables C.1 through C.8 in attached PDF document)
December 2015 34

Appendix D - Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection

and Federal Register Notice

D.1 Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

(See attached PDF document)

D.2 ICR Federal Register Notice

(See attached PDF document)